That’s a good point-- I’m on board with that.

Well, have a nap

THEN FIRE ZE SAMSUNG & LG CEOS!

Why is it always this one photo of Gabe? It’s like a meme format that journalists use unironically any time Steam comes up.

That looks really cool. It will help me live out my fantasy of having a handful of ants in my pocket that I can deploy at any moment.

Paywall :(

EDIT: Oh you can just open in a private tab to circumvent lol

Poor server-side error handling is a big turnoff for me, unsubbed.

That’s super interesting. How do you get started at something like that? Or where would a newcomer start to learn more about it?

Can you explain?

Back in the 90s I remember “Killing in the name of” was about kicking ass and not taking any shit from nobody. Listened to it a few weeks ago and it’s all woke now smdh.

When I searched “Elon bows to Turkey” I got this story about Twitter censoring some tweets during the Turkish election… Is that what you’re talking about?

I feel like that explanation is missing a verb or something.

Their prices stay lower, so if the person buying the laptop ships around even a little bit, they will likely buy from one of the non-affiliated sites.

So… I don’t think that’s necessarily how it works, at least not in aggregate. The first issue is the market capture you mention: Amazon has a sort of “soft” market capture-- you’re free to buy stuff from wherever, of course, but Amazon encourages customers to stay in their ecosystem, and also doesn’t permit sellers to set prices lower off-site for products that they list on Amazon (e.g. if they want to have a sale on their own website, that sale price must be reflected on Amazon, too). Those are some of the ways that Amazon exerts “soft” market control, which we both recognize is enough for algorithmic pricing to work.

Google also has this kind of “soft” market control… And they are generally much wider-reaching than Amazon. For instance: You suggested that people will “shop around.” How do people shop around? They probably use a search engine, and their search engine is probably Google. If Google was trying to interpret intent and guide their shopping decisions, why wouldn’t they privilege companies using “personalized pricing” in the search results, and bury non-participating competitors? Similar things already happen with ads. So when the user “shops around a little bit,” they are probably doing so in the context of the first page of Google results… Which, of course, Google is in control of.

Some people will clue in and search through other channels, or have retailers that they prefer, and visit directly… But many people will not bother/know to, just like they don’t bother/know to check CamelCamelCamel for Amazon price history to see what the algorithms are doing. Sometimes it’s lazy or complacent, but lots of the time they just don’t understand that it’s happening, or the degree to which it affects them.

Thanks… Yeah that makes sense. I can understand that sometimes the trade-off would make dumping fuel the right choice… I just wonder if the environmental impact factor in.

You don’t think companies would opt into letting Google manage “dynamic pricing” for them on a per-user basis? Travel sites already offer this for airlines after you signal intent, such as a destination and date range… And sellers on Amazon already use tools like Sellery to algorithmically reprice items without human supervision. Some products change price hundreds of times per day as a result.

Big retailers like Walmart are trying to make “personalized pricing” work, which tries to anticipate price tolerance based on past shopping behavior on an individual basis.

So it’s not a stretch at all IMO to imagine Google offering a “personalized pricing” service that you can install on any website, right under the script tag for Google Analytics. Or Amazon, or Walmart, or whoever-- They all have mountains of data on us.

Let me know if you find out lol

it all worked out

ARGH DON’T JINX IT

Interesting. How do you find that out?

And in fact, they never did.

Mine is that, except they DON’T complain. Like when someone is showing me a YouTube video on their device and an ad shows up 30 seconds in… I lunge for the mute button while I scan the room for a blanket, clipboard, or other item to shield us, yelling “AVERT YOUR EYES!!” but next to all of my commotion, they’re just nodding along placidly like “Oh Coinbase, interesting.”

Like… Aren’t you affronted that some company paid another company to make it less convenient to do the thing you’re trying to do?! Does the gaudy, pushy tone change to too-loud propaganda designed to coax you away from your money not gall you?!

“Idk sometimes the ads are interesting. Free month sounds good.”

Jesus christ he’s too far gone.

So does “dump fuel” literally mean “sprinkle a large volume of jet fuel over a large swathe of countryside?” Does it become diffuse enough that the environmental impact is negligible, or do we get a big splash that kills everything in an AoE?

Like… I’m surprised the fuel cost is the focus here, and not the environmental impact of releasing jet fuel just… into the air I guess? But maybe it doesn’t work the way I’m picturing.